By Davidde Corran
April 3rd 2009 @ 6:22am
Related coverage
Women’s football is finally back in business
On the 23rd of March 1895, on a grassy clearing in Northern London, a group of women gathered to make history. Few would notice, and even fewer cared. But history it was. A whistle was blown and 22 women played out the first recorded game of women’s football.
For the record, North London won 7-1 over their southern opponents.
Then, 25 years later, the first international game was held between two women’s teams.
English side, Dick, Kerr’s Ladies invited a women’s French representative team to play a series of games for charity. Impressively, 25,000 people turned out to see Dick, Kerr’s Ladies win 2-0.
However, a year later in 1921, sanctioned women’s football came to a shuddering halt. The English FA had decided to ban women playing the sport, the official reason being: “Complaints have been made as to football being played by women, the council feel impelled to express their strong opinion that the game of football is quite unsuitable for females and ought not to be encouraged.”
This status quo remained for 50 years.
Cross the globe and fast forward 88 years to the present day and professional women’s football has returned to America.
Los Angeles Sol, lead by the world’s best female player Marta, took on Washington Freedom at Home Depot Arena (you know that place David Beckham strolls around when he’s not in Milan).
Seven days after the 114th anniversary of the first ever recorded women’s football game, the WPS (Women’s Professional Soccer) had launched.
Following on from the 2007 Women’s World Cup, this is a crucial development for the game.
Firstly, it’s one of only two professional leagues in women’s sport around the world. Other than Denmark’s female handball league, Damehåndboldligaen, the rest are semi-professional.
On top of that, the WPS will hopefully help women’s football develop and take the next step up in both quality and popularity.
The emergence of the WPS is also a significant event for the game in Australia and the Matildas’ 2011 World Cup aspirations.
There are four Matildas playing in the new league.
Lisa De Vanna took to the field for the Freedom in the WPS’ inaugural game; Heather Garriock will be plying her trade with Chicago; and Sarah Walsh and Colette McCallum have signed on with Sky Blue FC.
They will be playing both alongside and against the best players in the world week in, week out.
What an opportunity!
Having spoken personally to both Heather and Sarah recently, they are ready to grasp it with both hands.
It’s a wonderful initiative.
It boggles the mind to think that in the 114 years since the first women’s game, only two professional leagues have emerged.
The next twelve months will be telling for both the WPS and women’s football.
Though, whatever does eventuate, somehow I suspect it won’t end with a statement about the suitability of football for females.
Get Australia's best Football opinion emailed daily.
Like this content? Buzz it up!
Free Email updates:
Our daily emails are only sent if there is content for the sport or that author. You can subscribe to multiple daily emails; or get the daily Roar email with all our content in it. We value privacy. More...
(12)
were we trying to bully union to death when they were boring people to death ( ok stop now ifs sokka’s so boring why is it so...
Spiro Zavos said | April 3rd 2009 @ 7:42am | Report comment
This question of a hard sport being suitable for women athletes, I believe, has been answered more than adequately in the last two decades. I would draw the line at boxing as it is the only sport I know where the object of the sport is to physically damage your opponent. The sweet science it is not. Women are not built to engage in a sport where the object is to damage part of the anatomy. But the other sports, including body contact sports, female athletes have shown that they can do well and enjoy the contest, and give the spectators a contest worth watching.
The Olympics had a ’suitabbility’ rule up to 30 years ago that the longest distance they could run was 400m. Now they participating in marathons which makes a mockery of the ‘weaker’ species argument.
I always like Dr Johnson’s answer to a question from Boswell in these matters.
‘Sir, who is superior, a man or a woman?’
Dr Johnson: ‘What man? What woman?’
Good luck to the women’s football competitionss.
TheWomensGame said | October 6th 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Spiro, I completely agree. Even this “militant feminist” can agree that boxing is the only sport that women probably shouldn’t go near. I think when you look at women’s sport it should not always be in comparison with men’s sport. It’s like comparing the A-League with the EPL. It will always come out lacking but when you examine it in its own right, it can be pretty good.
Michael C said | April 3rd 2009 @ 7:58am | Report comment
remember the consternation for the Swiss runner (?) in the ‘84 womens marathon.
Noting that the Rugby codes and Aust Footy in Australia have traditionally had stuff all female focus and participation – especially beyond age 14-15.
This has been changing gradually. Although many women have stuck with the touch/recreational variants.
Interesting to see the push for RU in the Olympics and the need to prove female participation. Thus far – - this should be a very, very tough thing to do.
The main issue now is around professionalism and sustainable incomes. We see enough of the segregated competition benchmarking mens vs womens re tennis especially, also golf. On other levels, via cricket, soccer and netball – professional wages are at the lower end and very much under par with male counterparts. For good reason obviously. It’s the capacity to develop and grow the market, the interest and the coverage that will dictate the long term sustainability of professional womens leagues of any sport.
This has been where, from the team sport perspective – the WNBA in the US has been perhaps a world leader in more recent times of providing pretty good coverage, competition and pay packets and Australia’s Penny Taylor and Lauren Jackson have benefitted grandly.
Brett McKay said | April 3rd 2009 @ 8:10am | Report comment
actually that’s a point, isn’t the WNBA fully professional??
Michael C said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:10am | Report comment
Brett -
yeah, I think so – - there’s certainly ‘professional’ and then “PROfessional”.
btw – that photo for this article is my least admired element of soccer – - multiple heads all vying to hit the same ball at about the same time at about the same point in space………….no thanx……….I’d take my chances in the boxing ring!!! (with reference to Spiro’s point on the ’sweet science’)
Davidde Corran said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:19am | Report comment
Unfortunately the WNBA hemorrhages money.
It is entirely subsidised by the NBA and the mens club chiefs aren’t happy about that.
They have recently cut the roster size down and the mens salary cap is over 50 times that of the womens.
Eamonn said | April 3rd 2009 @ 9:42am | Report comment
And Lydia Williams makes five Davidde…she’s playing in Chicago.
Nam Turk said | April 3rd 2009 @ 12:20pm | Report comment
Actually, we had the WUSA competition almost a decade ago, but it collapsed under a poor business model. Now they’ve learned and regrouped to try once again. The dormant period is not quite as dramatic as you make it sound. The women have played along with the men for as long as soccer’s been blossoming in North America. People sometimes denounce the limitations of gender equality measures in athletics (Title IX) but this sport shows the real success of it.
Davidde Corran said | April 3rd 2009 @ 2:43pm | Report comment
Nam Turk you’re right. The WPS has set much more modest goals then the WUSA and therefore set itself up accordingly.
The problem with the lack of professionalism around women’s football is that it prevents the game from developing on both a tactical and technical level.
The upside to that though is that there’s more space between the lines in women’s football. That means there’s still a place for your ‘foot on the ball’ type players. That’s a good thing in my books.
Sal said | April 3rd 2009 @ 3:48pm | Report comment
Great to see someone finally covering women’s football!
True Tah said | October 6th 2009 @ 9:29am | Report comment
I dont understand why the USA has got the pre-eminent women’s futbol competition in the world.
Why havent places like Germany, Austria, the Netherlands, Italy, Argentina, Brazil or even England got anything better than this? After all in these places, futbol is pretty much the only sport worth mentioning and in the USA, futbol is simply a part of a wider sporting diet.
Davidde Corran said | October 10th 2009 @ 11:20pm | Report comment
A very good question True Tah and one I don’t have the answer to.
Brazil is notorious for how women footballers are treated. The fact that the nation produced someone as wonderfully talented as Marta is all but a miracle. The trials and tribulations she went through just to be able to play football are phenomenal.
Scandanavia does have very strong leagues but they are semi-professional. The difference between that part of the world and the US is size and economic viability of the leagues. There is the financial scope for a women’s league to be successful in America that possibly there isn’t anywhere else. Though it’s worth noting that Tonya Antonucci, the head of the WPS in America, stated before the league’s launch nearly 12 months ago that they wouldn’t have put the WPS together had they known that the Global financial crisis was on its way.
Perceptions and attitudes towards women’s sport is also key right across the globe.